Forum:Complete RE-WRITE of Manual of Style
Ok guys, we really need to re-write the manual of style, it's outdated and some of it no longer applies. So what we should do is re-write it from scratch. Here is what I'm proposing: (Anything highlighted in green is new to the current MoS) should be used directly above this heading. # Gallery: Any other pictures of the set. # See Also: Links to related articles on Brickipedia, e.g. sets with a similar subject, appearance etc. or articles that describe a related subject with a broader scope or present an overview of related sets. (Not links to the parent theme or a simple list of sets of the same theme) # Sources/References: reftags from the articles. # External Links: At the end of the article. # Navbox: Respective theme navigation box. Sidenote: What is with the "Parts" section? Doesn't the inventory cover this and I'm pretty sure any unique pieces are listed in the "Notes" section? :Parts is in infobox as well (guess who designed that feature :D) Minifigure Articles # Lead Section (no heading): Short paragraph that describes the basic infos of the minifigure like release year, theme etc. It's common practice on most wikis that such a lead section does not have a section heading. # Description: Detailed description of the minifigure. # Background: Text that describes the background of the minifigure/character in its respective fictional universe (keep it short and simple). This should be written in the past tense. # Notes: Any important notes about the set. # Appearances: Section with the sets in which the minifigure has appeared. ##'Video Game Appearances:' If the minifigure has appeared in a video game, list the video games in this section. # Gallery of Variants: Section containing . # LEGO.com Description: Description taken from LEGO.com of the minifigure. (this section can be replaced with any other official description of the minifigure) # Gallery: Section with extra images of the minifigure. If a minifigure has back printing or a double sided head, the alternate views of the minifigure are to be included in this section. # Navigational Templates (no heading): Any appropriate navigational templates, such as . These are the two types of articles which I believe need to be fixed first, after we have come to a decision on these, we'll move onto the part, year, and theme articles. Kind regards, 08:08, August 29, 2012 (UTC) Discussion *'Support'. Great idea, and a good MoS. -- 08:12, August 29, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' definitely needs to be updated. *'Support' - But I would have the Notes section underneath the Minifigures Included section like it is on most pages now. - 10:52, August 29, 2012 (UTC) :This does seem to be a growing trend to place the notes section under the minifigure gallery and it does look alright there. I'd support that change. 12:12, August 29, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' Great ideas! *'Support' So much better.... 12:33, August 29, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' Great idea, definitely much better. *'Support' ~ CJC 16:56, August 29, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' 22:42, August 29, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' [[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 06:48, August 30, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' I like it, it would add a lot more details to articles, and then they would definitely deserve the ratings they have. And also, what about if we add more to the part articles? Many of them are Class 3 or lower, so we should add more guidelines. 22:51, September 1, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' Good idea, that's what we do already. 04:00, September 2, 2012 (UTC) *'Support!' }} Renaming Although I am 99% sure this won't pass I still would like to propose the idea of renaming the MoS. Honestly the name "Manual of Style" is quite boring and does not invite people to read it or much less care. That is why I say we rename it to something like the "Brick Manual" something that kind of goes with our name "Brickipedia. 12:33, August 29, 2012 (UTC) * Support Renaming Manual of Style. Really? Brick Manual sounds much better. *I might support a rename, but to something that still refers to what it actually is. Manual of Style works because that is what it is - When people see "Brick Manual", what would they think? 13:17, August 29, 2012 (UTC) :* Well, what would they think manual of style is? I might not be giving most of them enough credit, but they might think it's a dress code. 22:44, August 29, 2012 (UTC) :**New proposal, we establish Brickipedia:Dress code. ~ CJC 22:56, August 29, 2012 (UTC) :**It does kind of sound like a dress code :P, but what if we just rename it Manual of Article Style? That way it would clear up any thoughts on what 'style' means. :***(To both) I like that 23:55, September 1, 2012 (UTC) * Oppose I think Manual of Style is a good name, and doesn't sound like we're making everything too LEGO related (sorry) -- 02:23, August 30, 2012 (UTC) **Per Ajr and CzechMate. The name fits, and tells you what it is. If someone comes up with a better name that still adequately describes it, then I will (probably) support. 02:33, August 30, 2012 (UTC) ***Considering we are on a LEGO Wiki it would make since. Honestly I have maybe read the MoS three times but the name just makes it so boring sounding. 12:38, August 30, 2012 (UTC) ****I haven't read it yet at all. O_O 04:03, September 2, 2012 (UTC) * I'd support a new name, but not Brick Manual. We could have Brickipedia Article Manual? Brickipedia Writing Technique? [[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 07:02, August 30, 2012 (UTC) **I like Charge's idea of Brickipedia Article Manual. 12:38, August 30, 2012 (UTC) ***Because that's not boring-sounding at all... ****Honestly, I like Manual of Style more. It actually sounds better. 23:09, August 30, 2012 (UTC) *****To reword that, it works to brickify that, but it isn't musical. Manual of Style still sounds boring, but it kind of has a ring to it. It's probably the "Manu-''al''," and "Sty-''le''." 14:41, August 31, 2012 (UTC) * I'd support a LEGO related name as this is a LEGO wiki, not something cheesy like Brick Article whatever, but something that describes it well and sounds decent. 04:03, September 2, 2012 (UTC) * Oppose. I just think MoS is good. Sure, it's a boring name, but with this name everyone knows where it is and what it means, and also any newcomers to this wiki (but may have been on other wikis) know where to go to to get rules and conventions about the articles. 23:44, September 25, 2012 (UTC) Ratings system change? I don't get the current rating system, but not sure why we need so many classes :P So could we not have "non MoS compliant, MoS compliant, good article, featured" or something, and only good and featured would need the consensus, with others done by whoever? ~ CJC 20:25, August 29, 2012 (UTC) :Well, we have featured, good (class 1), complete (class 2) (MoS complaint), class 3 (not all info/not MoS complaint), class 4 (not MoS complaint), class 5 (stubs, etc.) 02:21, August 30, 2012 (UTC) ::Nooo! That would destroy the F12 Blog and any other Rating-promoting Blogs. Also, I think our current rating system is fine. ::: Per LSC [[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 06:53, August 30, 2012 (UTC) I kind of agree, but I'm not supporting. 23:10, August 30, 2012 (UTC) I don't see a problem with the current system myself. :/ It seems we have just as many ratings as we need. * Obviously my blog shouldn't have any influence on such things :P As far as I can see, this would result in a merge between Classes 5, 4 and 3. Personally, I think the way we have things are good, and it could be helpful to distinguish between a class 3 article and a class 5. 23:44, September 25, 2012 (UTC) Update to naming conventions New in green Naming conventions LEGO Sets Titles of set articles usually consist of the set's reference number followed by its official name. (e.g. 6552 Rocky River Retreat) * The names used at Brickipedia are the ones from the American releases. If a set was not not released in the US, the UK name has to be used. * If a set was released under several different numbers, each set warrants a separate article. * If a set was released with the same number but under different names, the chronologically first name has to be used in the title. * If a set does not have an official name or the name is unknown, the generally accepted conjectural name of the set may be used, as it can be found on most databases like Lugnet, Brickset, or Peeron. In this case, please place at the top of the article. LEGO Parts Titles of articles about parts follow the form "Part ". (e.g. Part 60470) The Design ID is the number that specifies a part's shape (and is mostly imprinted on its bottom side), while the Element ID also specifies its colour (and is found on current LEGO building instructions). The numbers used by Peeron are Design IDs. Element IDs should not be used. LEGO Minifigures For minifigures from a licensed theme, minifigures should be given the name that they are given on any official LEGO website, box or other official LEGO material, unless the name clearly contradicts the name of the character is meant to represent (for example, Shadow Stormtrooper minifigures are given the name "Shadowtrooper" by LEGO, however Shadowtroopers in the Star Wars Universe are distinctly different). If a licensed minifigure has officially been given more than one name by LEGO, then the more correct "in-universe" name should be used. For minifigures from an unlicensed theme, minifigures should be given the name that they are given on the box, website or other official LEGO material. If different names are given in official material, then the one used on the box or website should take precedence. If there is confusion over what to call the article, post it onto Brickipedia:Proposed Name Changes. If a minifigure has no official name, a descriptive or generally accepted name should be used. ---------- ~ CJC 20:06, September 7, 2012 (UTC) * " minifigures should be given the name that they are given on the box, box or other official LEGO material."? Anyway, Support. **Ssh, I don't read stuff I write. ~ CJC 19:41, September 8, 2012 (UTC) * Support. However, for "If different names are given in official material, then the one used on the box or website should take precedence." - take precedence over what? (/is this sentence necessary?) 23:44, September 25, 2012 (UTC) **It was a while ago, but I presume I meant over things like magazines. 07:39, September 26, 2012 (UTC) ***Take precedence over a name not used on the box or website.